PurposePrevious studies show that the hospital environment and the behavior of health care personnel may predict patients’ perceptions of care quality. The aim of the study was to explore changes in perceived care quality from the patients’ perspective (QPP) when hospital services are relocated from an old to a new high-tech hospital and to describe what is important for patients in the high-tech hospital.Patients and methodsA comparative cross-sectional design was used. The questionnaire QPP, which is based on a theoretical model of the quality of care comprising four quality dimensions, was used. Data were collected in 2015 (old hospital) and 2016 (new hospital), with 253 and 324 respondents, respectively, by consecutive sampling. Comparative statistics was used to test differences between patients’ care quality perceptions (perceived reality [PR] and subjective importance [SI]) (P≤0.05).ResultsThe patients rated PR of all four quality dimensions (the care organization’s physical-technical conditions and sociocultural approach and the caregivers’ medical-technical competence and identity-oriented approach) higher in the new hospital. However, only the two quality dimensions concerning the care organization were rated significantly more highly. On an item level, five of the 27 items scored significantly higher on patients’ SI than on patients’ PR of the care in the new hospital, indicating a quality deficiency from the patients’ perspective. This comprised receiving effective pain relief, receiving examination and treatment within an acceptable waiting time, receiving useful information on self-care, receiving useful information on which doctors were responsible for their medical care, and having a comfortable bed.ConclusionThe increase in care QPP was associated with improved environmental conditions, and no significant improvement in care quality was associated with the health care personnel. The results indicate that being in a high-tech environment does not improve patients’ perceptions of care quality provided by health care personnel. The results gave valuable information for quality improvement in clinical practice, based on the patients’ perspective.

Increased expression of cyclin A2 protein has been detected in different types of cancers. However, its prognostic importance appears to differ between tumours. The significance and precise mechanisms behind cyclin A2 overexpression remain to be elucidated. We used real-time PCR to examine CCNA2 amplification in tumour cells isolated by laser microdissection and in total tumour tissue in colon cancer patients in which overexpression of cyclin A2 protein had been revealed by immunohistochemistry (n = 22 patients). The results were verified by FISH. CCNA2 amplification was not detected in either the isolated tumour cells or the total tumour tissue. We verified our methods by demonstrating amplification of CCNA2 by real-time PCR in three out of eight breast tumours that overexpressed cyclin A2 protein (this frequency is consistent with the findings of others). However, FISH did not reveal any CCNA2 amplification in the breast tumours, but it did reveal polysomy of chromosome 4 or segments of chromosome 4 in three tumour tissue samples, indicating the importance of verifying the real-time PCR results with another method. To conclude, the increased cyclin A2 protein expression in these patients could not be explained by CCNA2 amplification in isolated colonic tumour cells.